Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tadimalla Subrahmanya Brahmaji Rao ... vs Prothapragada Uma Maeswara Rao, ... on 26 June, 2024
APHC010089912015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 465/2015
Between:
Tadimalla Subrahmanya Brahmaji Rao [died] & 4 ...APPELLANT(S)
Others and Others
AND
Prothapragada Uma Maeswara Rao W G Dist Anr ...RESPONDENT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. V S R ANJANEYALU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the
interlocutory order dated 02.03.2015 in I.A.No.1010 of 2014 in O.S.No.46
of 2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari
District.
2. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The suit was filed for
declaration that the plaintiffs 2 to 5 are entitled to manage the plaint
schedule properties and construct Sri Ramachandra Swamy Temple in
item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession
of item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties.
3. Along with the suit, the appellants filed I.A seeking temporary
injunction restraining the defendants from making constructions in item
No.1 of the plaint schedule properties. This application was opposed by
the respondents. The trial Court after hearing the respective counsels
dismissed the application with an observation that the further construction
of Temple if made shall be under the supervision of Village Sarpanch and
Village Officer subject to the result of the main suit. Hence, the present
C.M.A is filed.
4. In the present appeal, no interim order was passed either
suspending or modifying the order of the trial Court.
5. Heard Sri P.Sai Avinash, learned counsel representing Sri V.S.R.
Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the Appellants and Sri K.V.M.Chiranjeevi,
learned counsel representing Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned
counsel for the respondents.
6. In appeals against the interim orders of granting or refusing the
injunction the scope is only to see whether the order of the trial Court is a
plausible one or not. Merely because, opposite view is possible, this
Court cannot substitute its view. In this case, the trial Court passed an
elaborate order addressing the respective contentions was of the prima
facie opinion that the appellants are not entitled for temporary injunction.
Apart from that, in this C.M.A, there was no interim injunction in favour of
the appellants and it would be wholly inappropriate to grant injunction at
this length of time.
7. Therefore, the C.M.A is disposed of, confirming the order of the
trial Court. As the suit is of the year 2014, the trial Court shall endeavour
to dispose of the suit within a period of one year from today.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 26.06.2024
IS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 465/2015
Date: 26.06.2024
IS
